Re: What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

So, you're Clark Kent as a boy. You are in a school bus that fell into the river. You're super-powered so you take it out of the water. Can't you just bow your head so no one sees you? You do that, you don't have your dad killing himself. It's really that very simple.

Re: What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by blumatic

I guess but MOS wouldn't be the only film where English is spoken in a foreign planet.

Plenty of films are done where it's a olden time story taken place in a foreign country where the characters speak olden English.

And the Donner films and Timm's cartoons had Kryptonians speak English. It's just how it is.

I know the reason they did it but I really would have liked a different language. I know having actors like Shannon and Crowe speak gibberish sounds like it wouldn't have a diminished dramatic effect; however, in Blade the vampires spoke their own language and I don't think it took away anything from their performance or impact. Thats just me of course, maybe most people didn't like those scenes, but I liked them.

Re: What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

First of all, I loved the movie the way it was. But one small change that would have made a huge difference in the ending battle was if Zod would have made the comment "If you love these humans so much, I will make you mourn for them" would have included the words "Starting with her" as he charges towards Lois.

I believe even with all the same destruction, if the scene had began with that difference and everything else in the final battle was exactly the same, far less people would have complained about the destruction or Zod being killed.

If you know Superman, you know that the suit is a big deal. It’s his image, and his brand, and crucially it expresses who he is. That much was alluded to in Man Of Steel – the whole symbol of hope motif was meant to explain the importance of the logo and the suit, and yet like so many other under-developed narrative threads, it ended up being abandoned in favour of a quick fix.You would think that Jor-El would have prepared for the possibility that his son would become a valiant hero by putting his suit in the escape pod that ferries him to Earth. That was clearly his hope, since Superman as a concept was developed way back on Krypton when Jor-El decided he wanted his son to help his new planet avoid the fate of Krypton.But instead, the infamous Super suit was instead randomly stowed on a scout ship that was sent to Earth (and crashed) hundreds of thousands of years before Kal-El (and presumably his parents and most of his family tree) were even born. That was a remarkably handy turn of events for Clark Kent, and in no way felt like a complete betrayal of the importance of his suit to his development as a superhero. No, sorry, that’s not right is it?

The suit is a major part of ALL superhero films – it represents a personal decision by the superhero to not only hide their identity, but also to establish an iconography that turns them into a symbol. So the suggestion that there were hundreds or these red and blue suits dotted around on abandoned scout ships is a total betrayal of that symbolism.

The Engine is basically a giant spider machine (incredibly Jon Peters wasn’t involved) that shoots out Independence Day style beams of energy, in conjunction with Zod’s own ship in a way that is just confusing enough that noone would ever question it. So it’s like farming equipment.

But when Superman flies around the world to take the machine out, with absolutely no precedent or warning, the World Engine suddenly sprouts a giant snake arm that tries to squeeze Superman to death. This weapon appears out of nowhere, and quite why Snyder and Goyer didn’t just have the World Engine guarded by a few of Zod’s minions (who by this point have been completely pushed into the background) is beyond me.

It all feels like reactionary story-telling, and the worst kind of story-telling is reactionary story-telling. It’s like a child playing with his action figures, endlessly adding twists in the tale to ramp up the action without due diligence or foundation, and at the end of the day it is not only cheap, but it also poses more questions about the rest of the film’s expositionary prologue.

So wait, the Kryptonians equipped the World Engines with terrifying weaponry for what was presented as a peaceful programme to find suitable outposts to colonise? Are they saying the Kryptonians were basically going Borg on every planet they could, invading and annoying the natives off enough that huge defence capabilities were necessary?
That doesn’t sound very peaceful.

A major plot-hole that this article forgot to mention is the fact that everyone (except for Zod) forgot the Fortress of Solitude existed. Seriously, how does Superman go to a priest for guidance on what to do with Zod instead of talking to hollogram Jor-El. And even when he comes back to Earth knowing that Zod plans to destroy Earth, instead of racing back to get the one piece of Kryptonian technology at his disposal he instead tears up Kansas in a fist fight sponsored by Sears and Ihop.
On the subject of unexplored themes, the first half of the movie turns around the question of what would the earthlings do if they found out they were not alone, the consequences of this are left completely unexplored in the second half. The people of Earth seem to take the alien invasion and the destruction of their cities very matter-of-factly. Which is surprising given the in Nolan’s version of Batman, people react aversely to large death civilian death tolls. But in Man of Steel no one seems to care that Metropolis was devastated. In fact, the devastation doesn’t even show. To add insult to injury, the military’s final words on the subject of the alien from outer space are “he’s kind of hot.”

Actually the tentacle fight with the WE is given precedence through out the film. On Krypton we see the Kryptonian's use of their "liquid metal" tech for a variety of things, in computer read outs/displays and in their levatating robots, like Kelex (the robot that assists Jor-el) and Kelor (the robot with Lara when Krypton implodes). Later in the ancient scoutship we see a sentry robot use a "liquid metal" tendril to try and subdue Clark. There they establish that even a small version of this tech can at least stymie a super powered Kryptonian and at least cause one to react in pain. It also clearly establishes that this tech was indeed used by the Kryptonians as a defense measure. The World Engine was just a super sized version of a technology established in the earlier part of the film and continually built upon. So, no, the WE tentacle fight does not just come out of no where. In fact when the trailers first hit people were speculating wildly as to what the tentacle shown in the trailers might allude to. Was it Brainiac? Some weapon of Zod's? So it should not have actually surprised anyone. It was established as an element in the film even before it came out and was noticed enough to have sent posters on this forum's imaginations racing.

Now as to why the WE has defense system of some kind? Is this actually some kind of gigantic stretch? MOS is pretty much establishing the classic scifi side of this nascent DCCU it would seem to me. If you want to assume that in such a fictional universe there are NO versions of the various antagonistic alien races and space faring societies that are present in the comics that's your right. But I doubt a film that's the cornerstone of an expansive DC UNIVERSE is only supposed to have TWO humanoid races. The film's writer himself establishes that in the tie-in comic he wrote, as ruling council members mention "the savage Thanagarians" which are of course the people of Shayer Thal and Katar Hol, aka HAWKMAN and HAWKWOMAN, humanoid aliens. If you don't want to accept that because it's a comic tie-in, ok, but it being written by the film's writer gives it extra weight to my eyes. And again, it seems inevitable that other alien races, not all of them good natured are going to come to light in this new DCCU, so, yeah, Kryptonian's outfitting the WE seems pretty damned reasonable and not some grand leap. Neither would Zod adding a defense system to the WE, considering his nature or his ultimate plan for Earth. Really the question of why the WE had something to defend itself after all that was seen in the film or what could easily be intuitted by an audience member comes across to me as nitpicking for the sake of it.

As for the suit? This seems a matter of taste to me. If you felt the moment had no gravitas or what have you, well that is certainly your right to have as an opinion, or to share with this article you read as the case is. Seeing as it makes it's appearance right at the end of Jor-el's revelations to Clark about his origin and then bestows his people's native clothing on him it would seem to me it has more than enough dramatic significance. Again that's just my opinion. Whether the Jor-el A.I. was aware once uploaded into the scoutship that it contained a suit for a member of the House of El or if he had the suit created once installed seems kind of besides the point to me.

Now as to the question as to why Clark seeks out advice from a human religious authority? Well, for myself it's plain Goyer and Snyder are presenting Superman as someone whose sense of self starts with being a midwestern farmer. Despite searching for answers to his origins, he is clearly attached to, molded and raised in the human culture of the American state of Kansas. He plainly states so at film's end. This was not like Chris Reeve's Superman that undertook many years of tutelage in the Fortress of Solitude with that film's version of the Jor-el A.I., one which we see he seems to even have developed an emotional attachement to. No here, however long Clark spends with Jor-el whether weeks or little over a month before he returns to see Ma Kent, it appears Clark would not naturally go running to Jor-el for counsel or advice. Having established that Clark has some kind of faith when he's younger ("Did GOD do this to me?!")
it doesn't come off as odd at all that he'd seek answers/counsel from a religious authority.

Now the idea that he should have gone to the scoutship does have some validity to it, I can't deny that. But between Clark clearly wrestling with the implications his whole life of what revealing his existence would mean and Zod's 24 hour deadline he could be granted a mulligan here at least. It also seems to me that this complaint is pretty much aping the criticism from the HOW IT SHOULD HAVE ENDED MOS installment. Just one problem there though... the HISHE solution actually wouldn't work in the context of what actually IS established in the film. In the HISHE for MOS the HISHE crew seem to think all Superman would have to do is fly the ship that brought him to the planet up to the BLACK ZERO, activate it's Phantom Drive and problem solved, right? Not really, since in order for that to work the BZ's Phantom Drives also have to be active, something Zod is clearly shown to do only after releasing the WE and taking a position over Metropolis. In other words I don't know what Superman would have accomplished with such a tactic, but it would not have created a singularity sucking the BZ and it's crew back to the Phantom Zone. So, sorry HISHE guys. I love your work but this time I'd say they actually let their dislike of a film cloud their judgement as to what realistically would happen if a film adopted their solution to a given situation.

__________________My father. 1946-2014

He truly proved that every person has the potential to be a force for good in this life. So anyone that reads this, do me a favor... Call your parents.

Re: What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

That article is full of s***! and shows that they didn't pay total attention to the film. Krypton INC did a wonderful job of saying why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRYPTON INC.

As for the suit? This seems a matter of taste to me. If you felt the moment had no gravitas or what have you, well that is certainly your right to have as an opinion, or to share with this article you read as the case is. Seeing as it makes it's appearance right at the end of Jor-el's revelations to Clark about his origin and then bestows his people's native clothing on him it would seem to me it has more than enough dramatic significance. Again that's just my opinion. Whether the Jor-el A.I. was aware once uploaded into the scoutship that it contained a suit for a member of the House of El or if he had the suit created once installed seems kind of besides the point to me.

Thats the thing with the suit there appears to be several theories. I theorised that because the El's led the way with the scout ship that there would be suits with the emblem on the ship. I just take it the material can stretch to the size of the individuals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRYPTON INC.

Now as to the question as to why Clark seeks out advice from a human religious authority? Well, for myself it's plain Goyer and Snyder are presenting Superman as someone whose sense of self starts with being a midwestern farmer. Despite searching for answers to his origins, he is clearly attached to, molded and raised in the human culture of the American state of Kansas. He plainly states so at film's end. This was not like Chris Reeve's Superman that undertook many years of tutelage in the Fortress of Solitude with that film's version of the Jor-el A.I., one which we see he seems to even have developed an emotional attachement to. No here, however long Clark spends with Jor-el whether weeks or little over a month before he returns to see Ma Kent, it appears Clark would not naturally go running to Jor-el for counsel or advice. Having established that Clark has some kind of faith when he's younger ("Did GOD do this to me?!")
it doesn't come off as odd at all that he'd seek answers/counsel from a religious authority.

Now the idea that he should have gone to the scoutship does have some validity to it, I can't deny that. But between Clark clearly wrestling with the implications his whole life of what revealing his existence would mean and Zod's 24 hour deadline he could be granted a mulligan here at least. It also seems to me that this complaint is pretty much aping the criticism from the HOW IT SHOULD HAVE ENDED MOS installment. Just one problem there though... the HISHE solution actually wouldn't work in the context of what actually IS established in the film. In the HISHE for MOS the HISHE crew seem to think all Superman would have to do is fly the ship that brought him to the planet up to the BLACK ZERO, activate it's Phantom Drive and problem solved, right? Not really, since in order for that to work the BZ's Phantom Drives also have to be active, something Zod is clearly shown to do only after releasing the WE and taking a position over Metropolis. In other words I don't know what Superman would have accomplished with such a tactic, but it would not have created a singularity sucking the BZ and it's crew back to the Phantom Zone. So, sorry HISHE guys. I love your work but this time I'd say they actually let their dislike of a film cloud their judgement as to what realistically would happen if a film adopted their solution to a given situation.

I actually think you answered the question of why Clark didn't go to Jor El. Because at his heart he's a human, seeking religious advice in a time of need was probably the first thing that crossed his mind. As you said this was not the Chris Reeve version, he didn't really talk to his Dad much prior.

Re: What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

Just watched it again.

Some of my nitpicks.

Product placement, very obvious this time around.

Pa Kent going into the tornado death zone when he knew Clark could get the dog with no danger. I understand him telling Clark not to save him for fear of exposure but he didn't need to put himself in danger in the first place.

Great emphasis on "How would the world react if they knew Aliens exist among us" but with the arrival of Zod they never truly answered that.

The general telling Superman "How do we know you are in Americas best interests?" Instead of "how do we know you are in Earths best interest?"

Lois taking pics of the landscape and then immediately zooming right into to Clark up on the mountain, how did she know exactly where to look to or even to look"

I never really got why Jor El put the Codex in Kal El. he didn't want him to go to Earth and turn them into Kryptonians, was it just so it wouldn't die with the rest of them?

Jor El had Kal El by natural birth so he had a choice for what he wants to do with his life, then continually tells him which life to lead, the bridge between peoples, the saviour ect...

Re: What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

^ I never understood that complaint about what the general says. It doesn't seem weird to me that a US general, whose job is to protect the US, would be concerned with the safety of the country.

Also, Jor El put the Codex in Kal El so that when the time was right, the Kryptonians and humans could coexist on Earth (without terraforming the Earth). He suggests this to Zod at the end, but Zod refuses to compromise.

Re: What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalelvis

First of all, I loved the movie the way it was. But one small change that would have made a huge difference in the ending battle was if Zod would have made the comment "If you love these humans so much, I will make you mourn for them" would have included the words "Starting with her" as he charges towards Lois.

I believe even with all the same destruction, if the scene had began with that difference and everything else in the final battle was exactly the same, far less people would have complained about the destruction or Zod being killed.

I think that him trying to kill Lois would have made the ending much better. I liked the ending because it was unexpected, it took me by surprise, it was exciting, etc. but Zod charging after Lois and Superman killing him would have made the ending much more dramatic. I think that was a missed opportunity. There is a difference between Zod trying to kill a misc. random family or trying to kill Lois. I am not sure why they didn't go with that. Maybe trying to illustrate that he chose the protection of the humans rather than just the protection of his love interest.

Re: What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superman_200

I think that him trying to kill Lois would have made the ending much better. I liked the ending because it was unexpected, it took me by surprise, it was exciting, etc. but Zod charging after Lois and Superman killing him would have made the ending much more dramatic. I think that was a missed opportunity. There is a difference between Zod trying to kill a misc. random family or trying to kill Lois. I am not sure why they didn't go with that. Maybe trying to illustrate that he chose the protection of the humans rather than just the protection of his love interest.

I would've HATED that. Superman kills for a romance? Yuck. It feels disgusting to even think it.

I'd change the opening, develop Zod more, make a cleaner Krypton. Kal is born, they name him, we cut to Zod who is sitting in his home alone, show him having violent flashbacks of robotic creatures with symbols on their foreheads attacking krypton, killing people, even Zod's family, the flashbacks are brief, but just enough to see the Kryptonian council surrender to their attacker, a dome enclose over Kandor and make it disappear, Zod is haunted and angry. Jor-El is studying problems in the planet's core, but their computers say everything is fine, Jor-El asks Zod to come with him to check a fault line, as a scientist needs to be accompanied by a soldier when going to like the outer lands, access military equipment or whatever, just as a soldier needs authorization by a scientist to access scientific equipment, they talk, it's clear they're friends, Jor-El tells Zod about his son, Zod tells Jor-El that he knows a natural birth is illegal, suddenly an earthquake erupts, causing Jor-El to quickly check his readings, they're off the charts. Jor-El and Zod quickly rushes back to his lab to check his main computers, which are all reading things as fine, he digs deeper into the programming and finds the same symbol that was on the robotic creatures head embedded into the computers programming, corrupting it. Jor-El is horrified, Zod is furious, yelling about how that thing destroyed their families, their brightest city, and now it's destroyed THEM, Zod blames the council for bowing to the thing and proclaims them weak. Jor-El warns the council, as Zod rallies any soldiers loyal to him to save their world while they still can, he does so easily, they attack the council headquarters and take them out, Zod finds Jor-El, and asks him to help him save their world through allowing access to the Codex. The codex is a computer chip, essentially it's the brain, it has info on everything, from the genetic code from which all kryptonian children are created, to the entire history of Krypton and all its knowledge, and the how to build and operate a terraforming device called the World Engine, as such a thing has been illegal for a long time due to it requiring a planet with an already habitable environment and thus life. Jor-El refuses Zod, saying he will not allow Zod to destroy a entire race, Jor-El escapes, accesses the codex, steals it and goes to Lara, telling her they have to leave, Jor-El has set a warning for the planet to give them time to escape, but doubts they'll be able to as a military security system destroys any ship entering or leaving krypton, but Jor-El has a plan: a space probe, small enough to sneak past the security systems, but big enough to carry maybe one person, or one person and a baby, he sends Lara and Kal-El to the probe, she does, begrudgingly, as Jor-El gives her the codex and tells her he has to distract Zod's men to keep them from the probe, Lara is wounded fatally, maybe by Faora, but she gets into the probe with Kal-El and takes off, Zod captures Jor-El, and sees the probe doing that teleporting thing, he puts two and two together and takes Jor-El prisoner, gets on a large ship with his army, and shuts down the security systems, so he can track the ion trail or whatever sciency mumbo jumbo before disipates, Jor-El, though, has thought ahead, and damaged the teleportation device thing, making it so it would trap them temporarily in the "phantom zone" between the teleportation destinations, giving the trail time to disipate so they can't track it. Zod, furious, kills Jor-El, maybe, not sure, and we cut to Earth, where the probe crashes in Kansas at night, near a farm, Jonathan and Martha come out, Lara, barely alive, opens the probe, and they find her, Jonathan tries to save her, but she dies, her last words asking them to protect her son.

A few other things, some development for Lois, making her a bit of a low level reporter, a bit of big skeptic, maybe the whole story could be told through the words of Lois writing the story. Her arc could be about her seeing how someone like Clark can bring hope to the world. She could also win her first pulitzer.

Jonathan dies a different way, a tornado collapses a building, which a teenage Clark holds up, Jonathan's wounded, but he tells him it's not serious, he's lying so Clark won't try to save him and compromise the stability of the building which could endanger anyone else alive under it, this could be how Clark also discovers his x-ray vision can't see through lead, this could also be after an argument where Clark says he wants to help people after 9/11, and gets angry at Jonathan...

Zod maybe dies differently, make a big deal out of it, he could sucked into the phantom, which without a ship, would destroy the body, maybe, make this the reason Clark wants to live in the normal world with people, so he won't allow something like that to happen again, so he won't think of himself as above life and humanity.

Obviously develop the Clark/Lois relationship some more, a talk over coffee maybe.

Lois does not discover Superman is Clark, she gets close, but he comes to her asking her to stop. She does. However he reveals himself as Clark to her at the end of the movie when hired to the Daily Planet, and she recognizes him as both Clark and Superman. Same end line. Welcome to the planet.

Also develop the world's reaction to Superman more.

And two post credit scenes, one for Lex, implying they found another kryptonian (Kara) and maybe some kryptonite. The other scene for Batman.

Re: What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

I was listening to the podcast "a podcast and a movie" the other day and he made on hell of a spot on observation. Today people want to be smarter than the material and won't allow themselves to fully enjoy something as it is. Thought that was a damning verdict on people today, a lot of people have forgotten how to simply enjoy a film.

Re: What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by BH/HHH

I was listening to the podcast "a podcast and a movie" the other day and he made on hell of a spot on observation. Today people want to be smarter than the material and won't allow themselves to fully enjoy something as it is. Thought that was a damning verdict on people today, a lot of people have forgotten how to simply enjoy a film.

It's astonishing what some of you will try to tell yourselves to discredit others. That is such an arrogant and dismissive thing to say about a group of people, and most likely for no other reason than a difference of opinion. There's nothing at all spot on about that observation, nor is there of your conclusion. On what basis can you possibly say that people have forgotten how to enjoy a movie? Because they didn't gush about it as you have? Why should someone enjoy something if the content and execution isn't actually enjoyable to them? Please, put your money where your mouth is and give some conclusive examples to support such a broad, sweeping generalization, because I'm not seeing it. Try telling the folks who loved The Lego Movie that they forgot how to enjoy a movie, or the ones who didn't like Need for Speed that they're just being pedantic.

This reeks of yet another veiled attempt at saying "I just can't accept that some people didn't love MoS as much as I did". For as much as some of you want people to understand how great this movie is, you sure do have trouble empathizing with valid, contrarian opinions. There just has to be some sort of underlying contrivance for people's disapproval; heaven forbid that normal folks simply didn't take a liking to it for their own reasons.

Re: What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

I think some people need to re-check the title of this thread. Why do people have to defend their opinions? Does someone who says they loved the film have to defend that opinion?

How about people who didn't like the film go into the 'The things you loved/appreciated in the film' thread and start posting 'Sorry, you're wrong to enjoy that' or 'No, you shouldn't love what they did there and here's why your opinion is wrong.'

Re: What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

Haha wo dudes that wasn't my point at all calm down. I was merely pointing out that some people have an obsessive need to nitpick a film released today apart whereas older films they ignore certain things. It wasn't an intention to discredit anyones opinion at all. Everyones entitled to their own, chill out.

Re: What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by BH/HHH

I was listening to the podcast "a podcast and a movie" the other day and he made on hell of a spot on observation. Today people want to be smarter than the material and won't allow themselves to fully enjoy something as it is. Thought that was a damning verdict on people today, a lot of people have forgotten how to simply enjoy a film.

Some people didn't like the movie. It's really much more simple than trying to be smarter than a movie.

Re: What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

Some people didn't like the movie. It's really much more simple than trying to be smarter than a movie.

Its fine to dislike it but my point was against nitpicking not just in this film but in any film today. Some people don't seem to be able to watch films these days without that critical eye. Its the age if the internet we constantly get comments like oh if they'd done this or they should have done that is people trying to be smarter than the material. If you actually read my comments above you'd see I never said people couldn't dislike the film.

Tbh I'm not surprised you too particular offence seen as though you seem to hate the film.

Re: What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by BH/HHH

Its fine to dislike it but my point was against nitpicking not just in this film but in any film today. Some people don't seem to be able to watch films these days without that critical eye. Its the age if the internet we constantly get comments like oh if they'd done this or they should have done that is people trying to be smarter than the material. If you actually read my comments above you'd see I never said people couldn't dislike the film.

Re: What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

Haha really dude? I was merely pointing out what someone had said on a podcast and saying I agreed with it. Obviously its not the case with everyone but a lot of people do try and be smarter than the material.

Re: What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by BH/HHH

Some people don't seem to be able to watch films these days without that critical eye. Its the age if the internet we constantly get comments like oh if they'd done this or they should have done that is people trying to be smarter than the material.

I always see people say this, and I just don't fully agree. I think people have always been critical of movies. The only thing the internet has done, is given those people easier access to voice their opinions to a larger forum, instead of just talking to their friends/coworkers.

Re: What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travesty

I always see people say this, and I just don't fully agree. I think people have always been critical of movies. The only thing the internet has done, is given those people easier access to voice their opinions to a larger forum, instead of just talking to their friends/coworkers.

The internet didn't make people more critical, just easier to hear.

However, even with all the criticism that is now so much easier to voice, they still continue to make movies like Pompeii, and Need for Speed, Getaway, Grown Ups, Ride Along, etc. and even then people still go see them. I wish that when people were making movies they put more effort into it, and not just try to make money, but try to make long lasting art as well that is critically well received. I know they "try" but it seems like they half-try. When they were making Pain and Gain for example, didn't they know it was turning out pretty bad as they were filming? It seems like very few people are out there trying to make the next Citizen Kane, Godfather, Gone With the Wind, etc.

Another thing I think that is really weird is that you see fans and critics disagree a great deal on a huge amount of movies, for example, Ride Along was at something like 25% Fresh and Audiences were at something like 85% Fresh. I don't know if people just want to believe that the movie they spent money to see at a movie theater was funny and don't want to feel like they wasted their hard earned money and trick themselves into saying they did like it. They want to be part of the winning team and no have to admit they got played and paid to watch a bad movie.

Or if they are talking, looking around, eating popcorn, etc. and are just not fully engaged in the film and just use the movie as a background noise to the actual movie-going experience. For example, if you watch Godfather, you can't be talking to your wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, husband, etc. and worried about passing popcorn and soda and all this other nonsense because you will miss very critical points of the movie. Maybe with dumb movies they can miss more and then laugh at a few dumb jokes (which they would probably not laugh at at home after a second viewing) and that makes them think that they saw a good movie and didn't waste their money.